The consumer’s issue:
In 2023, the consumer bought a used ‘17 estate car for £23,000, and took out a two-year extended warranty via a third-party provider. Approximately nine months after purchase, the consumer’s vehicle experienced a tail light fault due to water ingress. The consumer explained that the unit was a sealed, non-serviceable component and believed the failure to be a known issue.
As a result of the above, the vehicle was taken to a dealership for inspection, and a claim was submitted under the extended warranty agreement. However, the warranty provider rejected it, due to exclusions in the terms relating to water ingress and body seals.
As the claim was unsuccessful, the consumer had to pay for the repair, but was later offered a partial goodwill contribution towards the cost by the manufacturer’s customer service team. However, it remained the consumer’s position that the part should not have failed in the first place.
To resolve the dispute, the vehicle owner sought a refund of the sum they were left to pay towards the cost of repair which totalled around £400.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, including the warranty documents, and outlined that it was the consumer’s responsibility to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the reported fault fell within the terms and conditions of the warranty.
Upon examination of the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement, the adjudicator found that faults caused by water ingress, as well as body seals and weatherstrips, were excluded from the coverage provided by the agreement.
As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the warranty provider had acted in line with the policy terms when rejecting the claim, and that the exclusions had been clearly outlined in the terms and conditions provided.
Conclusion:
As there was insufficient evidence to show that the warranty provider had breached the Code, the complaint was not upheld and no award was made.
However, given that it was the consumer’s position that the part should not have failed and that it is a known fault, it was explained to the consumer that they may wish to contact the seller. This is because the seller has the legal responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to ensure any vehicle sold was of satisfactory quality. Should a car fail to meet this standard, then it may be the seller’s responsibility to resolve the issue.
Key learning point:
A consumer may successfully make a claim under a warranty where the reported fault falls within the scope of the terms and conditions. Where a consumer believes that a component has failed prematurely, but the issue is excluded from their warranty, it may be more appropriate for the matter to be raised with the selling dealership.
